Vladislav Grigoriev18:30, 08.03.25
Trump’s rhetoric is gradually becoming more aggressive, and the contradictions are becoming more pronounced.
US President Donald Trump often makes loud statements that can go far beyond Washington’s domestic politics. Sometimes, these statements contradict each other, which is an unusual rhetorical tactic for the American leader.
The New York Times found out why Trump makes controversial statements that may not correspond to reality. The truth turned out to be more complicated than it might seem at first glance.
It is noted that since returning to the White House, Trump has constantly changed his positions, contradicting himself, sometimes even on the same day. These inconsistencies present dueling versions to American citizens, allowing people to choose what to believe about the president’s intentions.
The publication noted that Trump’s rhetoric is gradually becoming more brazen and aggressive. At the same time, the contradictions are becoming more pronounced.
“He talks so much that you can’t pin him down. The point is not to contradict, but to cover up the truth. The reality of our modern information world is that you can choose what you want to believe. He understands that instinctively,” said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton history professor and editor of a book of essays about Trump’s first term.
The publication recalled that just a few hours after taking office as US President, Trump pardoned the participants in the riots in the Capitol that took place on January 6, 2021. This contradicts his declared support for law enforcement, since at that time the protesters attacked police officers.
Trump also disparaged diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in his first weeks in office, even blaming diversity efforts at the Federal Aviation Administration for a deadly plane crash over the Potomac River. Hours later, however, the American leader backtracked.
“We want the most competent people. We don’t care what race they are,” Trump said at the time.
The publication emphasized that last month, Trump made a stunning statement that the United States would seek to seize the Gaza Strip, permanently displace the Palestinian population and reestablish the coastal enclave as the “Riviera of the Middle East.” After the American leader faced discontent among American citizens, he said that this was only a recommendation.
Trump also suggested Greenland should opt to become U.S. property during his speech to Congress. He later said Washington would “get control of the island anyway.”
When speaking about Ukraine, Trump also does not hold back in his wording. For example, on his social network Truth Social, he called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator without elections.” Already during a meeting with the Ukrainian leader in the Oval Office, the head of Washington told journalists that he does not believe that he would speak about Zelensky in this way.
A Trump aide told reporters that the US president’s ambiguity on the Middle East and Ukraine is aimed at pushing both regions toward peace. However, the approach has its downsides.
“As soon as you undermine coherence, a shared sense of reality, you undermine the foundation of democracy. If there is no shared sense of reality, we cannot collectively make decisions. So the only person making decisions is the destroyer in chief,” said Jason Stanley, a Yale professor who has written books on propaganda and the erasure of history.
(C)UNIAN 2025
TL;DR : Trump wants to be a dictator.
I can’t say that I found this ‘analysis’ clear, only the conclusion appears to say that Trump behaves this way so that he can dictate to everyone – but does not clarify any sense of where Trump is heading politically, practically nor morally.
Let all democracies take note: how to become a dictatorship – maybe Trump by Putin’s understanding is a genius?
Interesting that both Putin and Trump are indeed masters of subversion.
For sure we need to rethink what “democracy” is and whether it should be abandoned for something better.
This moron seems to simply throw out the first thought that enters his pea brain and waits to see the response. There is never any analysis of the idea or positive/negative impacts of what he spouts before hand. Seems he then reads the pols, as a true politian would, then drift towards the better shoal, the tide lowers and ihe is aground again. No leadership, its wreckingship.